 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
Windows fee remover exist too. Works all current versions up to 0.6. Also they not public it.  i know people can and do remove dev fee from all miners, and its probably not hard for those in this field. be cool if people would link to the post where someone has said they have. i'm the sure majority of people reading threads like these are more than happy to pay a one time fee to have it removed. |
|
|
|
Can someone write a comprehensive post stating what the current red flags are about this bminer?
Recently, a ZCash forum was deleted that showed damning benchmarks that indicated the bminer hashrate log was clearly lying (reporting inflated hashrates, or lying about the dev fee).
Is it still the consensus that Bminer inflates hash-rates, and in actuality is no faster than DSTM?
Have other suspicious things been found about bminer? Sounds like people have found suspicious outgoing network activity from bminer?
There are almost fifty pages of posts about this, and its very difficult given this website's structure to go through them. If someone could write a comprehensive status report about this miner, it would surely make the world a better place.
Currently, all my gpus are running DSTM. If someone has real benchmarks (not console printouts, plebs..) comparing current performance of equihash miners that would be great.
you'll have to start reading the last 15 pages to see what people have been complaining about. theres been several people who have tried to compare dstm and bminer with 24+ hour runs but to be truly accurate you need to run them during the same time period. most common things you'll see in this thread are: over reported hashrate...by a lot. most of the reported hashrate on pool side from any benchmark between dstm and bminer are very close. but bminer has 3%+ reported hashrate on the console. on the consoles for the rig i tested it on (6x 1070ti's) i get 3065 sol/s with dstm and 3170 sol/s with bminer. i've let each miner run for 1 week to see how much variance in hashrate i get at flypool and its really a toss up. bminers reported additional 105 sol/s should have some impact on pool side, which it does not seem to. thats obvioiusly not a valid comparison so i haven't posted anything about it, but imo i don't see any effect of bminers higher reported hashrate. bminer has a private connection that connects to his server for "runtime and licensing information"... hes purposefully avoiding giving us a straight answer on it, and although we've all bitched about it, doesn't seem like he will remove it. its more important to him to have security to get his dev fee than to be upfront about the private connection. no other miners use a private connection like this. theres no reason for anyone to use bminer while it exists especially if theres no true performance gain (not exaggerated hashrates) there is a bug someone reported that the console is showing that his rig was hashing away just fine but on the pool side there was 0 hashrate. so for whatever reason, lost connection to the pool but somehow was still hashing away. the perks of bminer are that you aren't giving 2% dev fee to dstm lol. bminer does seem to be lighter on cpu usage. |
|
|
|
Also there are fee remover for 5.8 and 6.0. But they dont want give them public. They offer them customized for your wallet id for a one time donation.
Also only linux
ok we can understand that you are a part of people what you call "they". What you do here is stealing. He gives maybe tons of works for this tool , you have to pay what he wants for hiş miner or dont use it. You post replies just to pump this topic. so shut up. you're confused, but i'll help you out! what dstm does is called stealing. 2% dev fee with months of no updates or no performance gain...still collecting a set fee. thats stealing. he doesn't have any terms of service or copyrights..so yeah. you can pay whatever you want. other people that understand that 2% of a large hashrate is massively overpaying a dev that can no longer make any performance increases yet still charges the same fee will "opt out" of the dev fee.  |
|
|
|
What a load a horseshite ... you continue to be totally vague, despite repeated requests for actual details and explanations. You must think we're all stupid. Let's see: The first communication checks the update and receives license information, including for example where to mine devfee. Because of security reasons, it would be very hard to eliminate this private communication. Total BS. If that were true, all miners would require it. What security concerns? Explain it to the experts. I'm a dev myself. Let's hear it. The follow-up communications only send runtime information of bminer, like the mining speed of each card and performance status. This may enable bminer to choose better optimization strategies. Complete BS. You don't need to call back home to enable optimizations. Build them into the executable like any sane developer. I understand your concerns about the private connection. In future, I will consider making the follow-up runtime communications transparent. Or alternatively, I can create an option to opt-out the communications.
Remove it. Can't you see it's the biggest reason why people hate you and your miner? Right now it all screams that you are shady. Sorry, but the repeated times you were called out on this and failed to provide details to reassure users all point to hidden interests. I've been working really hard to try to expose what's being sent back and forth to his servers, but he's gone to great lengths to protect it. So far, here's what I've found: This is the communication that occurs as soon as you start the miner (there's also some unprintable characters which I omitted, I believe this is encrypted info that I won't be able to break):GET https://api.bminer.me/v1/init/zec/520 HTTP/1.1 User-Agent: Go-http-client/1.1 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Accept-Encoding: gzip stratum+ssl://t1YmvsEuSkADkoYBqtwRt3aJ31GvZzF45fL.w@zec-eu1.nanopool.org:6633/ -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIID/DCCAuagAwIBAgIID+rOSdTGfGcwCwYJKoZIhvcNAQELMIGLMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzEZMBcGA1UEChMQQ2xvdWRGbGFyZSwgSW5jLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrQ2xvdWRG bGFyZSBPcmlnaW4gU1NMIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIEF1dGhvcml0eTEWMBQGA1UEBxMN U2FuIEZyYW5jaXNjbzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5pYTAeFw0xNDExMTMyMDM4 NTBaFw0xOTExMTQwMTQzNTBaMIGLMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEZMBcGA1UEChMQQ2xv dWRGbGFyZSwgSW5jLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrQ2xvdWRGbGFyZSBPcmlnaW4gU1NMIENl cnRpZmljYXRlIEF1dGhvcml0eTEWMBQGA1UEBxMNU2FuIEZyYW5jaXNjbzETMBEG A1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5pYTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEB AMBIlWf1KEKR5hbB75OYrAcUXobpD/AxvSYRXr91mbRu+lqE7YbyyRUShQh15lem ef+umeEtPZoLFLhcLyczJxOhI+siLGDQm/a/UDkWvAXYa5DZ+pHU5ct5nZ8pGzqJ p8G1Hy5RMVYDXZT9F6EaHjMG0OOffH6Ih25TtgfyyrjXycwDH0u6GXt+G/rywcqz /9W4Aki3XNQMUHNQAtBLEEIYHMkyTYJxuL2tXO6ID5cCsoWw8meHufTeZW2DyUpl yP3AHt4149RQSyWZMJ6AyntL9d8Xhfpxd9rJkh9Kge2iV9rQTFuE1rRT5s7OSJcK xUsklgHcGHYMcNfNMilNHb8CAwEAAaNmMGQwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgAGMBIGA1Ud EwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQIwHQYDVR0OBBYEFCToU1ddfDRAh6nrlNu64RZ4/CmkMB8G A1UdIwQYMBaAFCToU1ddfDRAh6nrlNu64RZ4/CmkMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEBCwOCAQEA cQDBVAoRrhhsGegsSFsv1w8v27zzHKaJNv6ffLGIRvXK8VKKK0gKXh2zQtN9SnaD gYNe7Pr4C3I8ooYKRJJWLsmEHdGdnYYmj0OJfGrfQf6MLIc/11bQhLepZTxdhFYh QGgDl6gRmb8aDwk7Q92BPvek5nMzaWlP82ixavvYI+okoSY8pwdcVKobx6rWzMWz ZEC9M6H3F0dDYE23XcCFIdgNSAmmGyXPBstOe0aAJXwJTxOEPn36VWr0PKIQJy5Y 4o1wpMpqCOIwWc8J9REV/REzN6Z1LXImdUgXIXOwrz56gKUJzPejtBQyIGj0mveX Fu6q54beR89jDc+oABmOgg== -----END CERTIFICATE----- I'm reasonably sure this is Nanopool's cert which he uses explicitly to prevent cert forging and MITM attacks on his devfee. This is the communication that occurs every 10-15 minutes or so (note the content length is way higher than the content which means im missing stuff, possibly speeds):POST https://api.bminer.me/v1/stats/zec/520 HTTP/1.1 Host: api.bminer.me User-Agent: Go-http-client/1.1 Content-Length: 727 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Accept-Encoding: gzip Connection: close Linux* GenuineIntel GeForce GTX 1080 9GB (GPU-5bea6e5b-1234-4321-abab-12b7e7a78789 0000:00:00.0 GeForce GTX 1080 9GB (GPU-5bea6e5b-1234-4321-abab-12b7e7a78789 0000:00:00.0 GeForce GTX 1080 9GB (GPU-5bea6e5b-1234-4321-abab-12b7e7a78789 0000:00:00.0 GeForce GTX 1080 9GB (GPU-5bea6e5b-1234-4321-abab-12b7e7a78789 0000:00:00.0 GeForce GTX 1080 9GB (GPU-5bea6e5b-1234-4321-abab-12b7e7a78789 0000:00:00.0 GeForce GTX 1080 9GB (GPU-5bea6e5b-1234-4321-abab-12b7e7a78789 0000:00:00.0 Make your own opinions I guess. cc. @cryptoyes a big thank you to both of you for your work on this! really appreciate knowing whats going on in his private connection he keeps avoiding to answer. that proxy server is a great idea, i'm curious to see how accurate hashrates are between pools and other miners as well. this will be extremely helpful when choosing a miner and a pool. every time i see a reply from bminer, he looks more and more shady. looking forward to his next reply with actual proof of the bullshit we've been calling him out on for weeks. if he doesn't start being transparent i doubt anyone is going to use his miner after reading all the replies in this thread. |
|
|
|
Feature suggestion:
Ability to stop mining for specific hours. For instance:
- every day from 6AM to 9 AM
- Monday to friday from 13:00-14:00
Basically a logic:
#day of the week, time off, time on
With 0 = every day, 1 = monday, 2 = tuesday, etc...
and the ability to write several lines, ie:
1,1000,1200
2,1800,2230
0,0000,0130
Would mean stop mining monday from 10:00-12:00 and Tuesday from 18:00-22:30 and every day from midnight to 1:30AM
Thank you for consideration
i don't understand this request. the whole point of this script is to keep mining uptime at 100% or close to it as possible. if you want to NOT mine, i would suggest another alternative. |
|
|
|
Also keen to use this, but the private connection people are worrying about has me worried too.
I will try to explain more about the private connection here. The first communication checks the update and receives license information, including for example where to mine devfee. Because of security reasons, it would be very hard to eliminate this private communication. The follow-up communications only send runtime information of bminer, like the mining speed of each card and performance status. This may enable bminer to choose better optimization strategies. I understand your concerns about the private connection. In future, I will consider making the follow-up runtime communications transparent. Or alternatively, I can create an option to opt-out the communications. not good enough. bminer already over reports hashrate by atleast 3%. we don't want the private connection period. no other miner does this and they have no problems collecting their dev fee. bminer is getting a shit reputation because of your unwillingness to be transparent. you're losing more money by trying to prevent people from avoiding your fee. people aren't using your miner because of the private connection. 2% dev fee of a 0 hashrate is 0. |
|
|
|
You got me. I made an account to reply to a thread.
Which topic did you make an account to reply to? LMFAO
I'm sorry if you find my words aggressive but you'll have to get over it.
No body needs to do anything.
His script has the potential to take peoples mining time without their knowledge.
Fair point, I confess I hadn't thought of that.
Do you know what a troll is.
I cant think of a better example so here goes:-
If I advertise my voluntary services and get a job picking up clothes for a charity. Then at the end of the day I take a pair of socks, do they belong to me?
out of all the high dev fee miners and shit you're coming here to criticize someone that offers a FREE script that has 5 pool back ups for your miner to keep you up and running 24/7 and that he has online for a back up address to his wallet if the first FIVE fail? it would be funny if it wasn't so absurd, i mean if you can read than you can change the config file to your own personal pool preferences. if it goes through 5 pools and can't mine to any of them then its not going to mine to his own address. |
|
|
|
The miner is now so stable and solid, I doubt there is much more that can be done to improve it. That being the case, he should probably increase the fee to say 2.5% as the software is well and truly out of beta. I get hashrates at least 4% better than the nearest competitor so I would accept a higher fee. Can't say I would like it but I wouldn't complain about it as I am a firm supporter of capitalism and fees should be set as high as the market will bear. Can't see any reason why he should lower the fee! Doesn't make any sense at all to do so.
quite the opposite. the intent of a dev(eloper) fee is to develop and improve. if there is no more substantial improvements, then the fee should go down not up. we've been told dstm zm 6.0 would be out for a month now. its not here, why would the dev fee go up? i'm all for projects removing dev fees from miners at this point. you are a moron if you think that a program author has rights to 2% (or more) of your hardware output without any regular updates/performance increases. |
|
|
|
Find a way to remove this shady and ridiculous private connection. Otherwise, EVERYONE SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM THIS MINER! Your rigs can go down whenever @realbminer wishes, or when his server goes down, etc.
...
Dude are you fucking retarded or what? You keep pissing on BMiner, yet you are still using it. There is something seriously wrong with you. If you dont like it GTFO and use some other miner and stop being such an asshole. Whoa there, weiner-dog... If people don't make a big deal out of secret, encrypted connections made every 15 minutes by a miner program then what incentive is there for the dev to explain it, much less stop doing it? Complaints like this are not about being an asshole, rather, it's to encourage a bit more transparency and accountability from the dev. Frankly, I won't use a miner that does this secret squirrel shit, either, even if it is slightly - and I do mean, /slightly/ - faster than the competition. So if bminer wants my business then he needs to A) improve stability - if your miner is 3% faster than the competition but it crashes with no outward appearance of doing so it isn't faster anymore; B) stop messaging home base every 15 minutes for "licensing information and updates" - what license, and why check for updates every 15 minutes when they aren't released but every month or so?; C) lower the devfee - I know dstm and ewbf charge 2% and the dev thinks he's entitled to the same, but that's not how capitalism works - when you are a newcomer to a field with entrenched competition you can't expect to immediately charge the same as said competition and thrive. Well put. Dev really needs to fully address these concerns. I agree. We need to know what this is about. Other miners are not doing this. agreed! we are all waiting on your response bminer |
|
|
|
Hi Guys ( n girls  ), found a dev fee remover for dstm miner, its just working for Version up to 5.7 but 5.8 is not making a difference in profit. Seems only linux at the moment. Have fun I ran the script and it show me: dev share redirected to your account t1ZYJG6uYVf1cPfjjEGB9C5uA6p9qQnyz7c.m @ flypool.org But, in the flypool, I saw one woker: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1ZYJG6uYVf1cPfjjEGB9C5uA6p9qQnyz7cThe correct one would be to show 2 worker? or just 1? My current worker is t looks like it was working to me, i see two workers even though you stopped mining a while ago. you can see 2 workers clearly in the graph. dev fee is collected every so often, not constantly. |
|
|
|
Thank you @Acrefawn
I think there is some issue with Bminer v5.3.0 .. I open the script .. 3sec blue CMD window close
same here ..... may be a log will welcome to know what's wrong  start script one time , autoclose , no new file .... restart script "Config_Bmnr.ini" file was made and end restart again , some cmd windows start & turn off without see something in and got red windows Something is wrong... Miner ran for 00:00:00 Miner restarting... +================================================================+ Please wait 30 seconds or press any key to continue... again and again # Set main server miner command here to auto-create miner.bat file if it is missing or wrong. [keep default order]
commandserver1=bminer.exe -uri stratum://t1S8HRoMoyhBhwXq6zY5vHwqhd9MHSiHWKv.fr190[:x]@eu1-zcash.flypool.org:3333 -logfile miner.log -max-temperature 80 i had that problem as well, so i deleted the [:x] in the config.ini file # Set total average hashrate of this Rig. [you can use average hashrate value from your pool]
hashrate=0 i also kept hashrate=0 at default since bminer takes several minutes to report the current hashrate. really wished bminer would change that. |
|
|
|
I have read in a forum that they want release it during next days
which forum is that? or thread? |
|
|
|
My main complaint to bminer and all other miners is that the devfee is too high. But I don't think they will change it. you're right of course, theres a reason why its so high...not enough alternatives. people will continue to use these high dev fee miners for the minimal profit increase over miners with a no devfee option. they don't deserve the free money for every hash, i mean 400K a month and not doing any updates for 2-3 months with really no performance increase. its free money for devs at this point. BTW, Some people in this thread is very strange and suspicious. For example, if you check the history posts of @resiva, all of his past 4 posts are in this thread. Just like the sole purpose of this account is to say negative things about bminer. There are also a few newbie accounts only saying positive things about bminer. It is fun to watch those marketing accounts fighting back forth lol.
bminer was banned from another forum because he was making sock puppets to promote his equihash miner, it wouldn't surprise me that he would make alt accounts here to get more users. i can't agree with your look on greedy miners vs authors tho. i'm fine with paying a monthly fee for something that is benefiting me in terms of them actually working/improving the product. miner authors do not do this, they go months without updates and they do not increase performance by any meaningful amounts. since theres so few choices for mining programs, they know they own the market and can charge whatever they want. so that leaves us with the simple decision to either pay the ridiculously high 2% fee (which sucks for serious miners) or look for alternative methods of removing the fee. the choice is yours of course but i'm fine with it. i've already donated more than enough to dstm to cover his 4 updates in the last 6+ months that i've used his miner. hes not made any performance increases, so can you justify the fee? bminer is worse at this point. he won't even tell us why needs the private connection or why he won't change the UI reporting the total hashrate but won't report his dev hashrate when its collected. transparency is the answer here, and these closed source dev miners are just here to make money (like us of course) but if they aren't earning it i'll give my money to someone that will. (even if thats a person that shares a way to avoid the dev fee for an older build) |
|
|
|
"bminer will request runtime and licensing information from time to time."
this is the primary reason i'm not using bminer on my rigs. you have a connection that you refuse to explain what it is beyond some vague explanation of "runtime and licensing information." i mean the post you linked as a reply to our concerns sounds like a politician's talking points and platitudes. you don't answer the questions with any level of technical detail and just tell us how much you love us and the community. if that was the case there would be no dev fee at all. you're shooting yourself in the foot here being deceptive with the private connection and over reporting of hashrates. deduct your dev fee visably in the miner's UI and address the questions we keep having to ask you over and over again. people are fed up from many of the 2% miner dev fees for shitty support, rare updates, and minimal if ANY performance increase. theres already people working on no dev fee tools to remove them from other popular miner like claymore and dstm. people aren't going to use your miner if you can't be more transparent.
|
|
|
|
This myshare thing looks pretty suspicious.
Does anyone even care why myshare is in a standalone executable and requires administrative rights?
Does anyone care that the poster "Found" this thing, and is sharing it via a zip file and not wherever the hell it came from?
Am I the only one not dumb enough to fall for this crap? Does anyone else want proof?!
Same thing here. A standalone compiled binary without any kind of source/reference that does god-knows-what asking for admin rights? Perhaps someone who actually falls for this deserves to be hacked. if only there were a way for us to test the program when its available...oh wait. thats what everyone does when they decide to use it or not. no one in this thread has reported any foul play, except for the 2% dev fee from dstm that has people looking for an alternative like myshare. |
|
|
|
@MagicSmoker - It doesn't really matter what you mine as long as it's similarly profitable (just sell it on the exchange and buy what you want). Even if not, two days with a single card makes almost no difference, especially if the primary interest is in getting a more accurate test result which could help you improve your profits far more than that in the future. Mining zec is quite all right. Give Flypool a try I say  As for luckpool: 2 MH/s is still measly. Interesting that you prefer an almost sure loss of 9% but are at the same time bothered (like I am) about 5% difference in miner performance ... or perhaps you dislike scammers as much as I do I'll be busy the coming week, but will eventually release that proxy to allow more accurate comparisons of miners without wasting profits. I'm even thinking of having the proxy upload anonymous results on a public space at github for everyone to see (it will all be open source). If anyone is skimming, they need to be exposed. This community has been taken advantage of far too much. make sure you add your crypto address so we can drop you some donations. this is something i'm surprised no one has done yet and would love to see ACTUAL numbers. pre-thanks! |
|
|
|
It is difficult to explain in short statements, but I'll try.
1. Bminer reports total hashrates for your GPUs. It includes all shares (accepted, rejected and the devfee). As a result, turning on / off devfee does not affect the numbers the disabled optimization on various places does affect the payout, which you might see less hashrate on the pool side.
2. The pool estimate the hashrate based on the number of accepted shares and the *difficulties* of the shares. Essentially hashrate = the number of accepted shares * difficulty. Pools control the number of RPCs sent to the pools by varying the difficulties. Therefore, it is quite normal to see that all miners report roughly the same number of the shares to the pool, but due to the differences in difficulties the payout could be very different.
3. Bminer right now does submit some invalid shares. My understanding is that there are benign and will not affect the payout. I got good results on nanopool / miningpoolhub, but at the same time I suspect that there are times that the pools are penalizing it. I'm looking into it in more details.
4. There is no points for miners developers (at least that's my view) to cheat / scam or whatsoever, as it is relatively straightforward to verify the payouts and to migrate between different miners. Cheating will not go far. My mission is to develop the most efficient miner available to help the users to get more hashrates from their GPUs.
Since the questions have come up from time to time I might spend some time to write out how the whole thing works. Stay tuned!
thanks for the explanation and i think it would be great if you took the time to write out how it all works and put it in your first post so everyone understands it when they download it. i would love to switch over to bminer full time and ditch dstm, but i have a few concerns first: 1) accepted/invalid share/rejected share clarification would be great. confirmation if sending invalid shares penalizes, thats a big deal. test on flypool since its the largest? 2) if the total reported hashrate from bminer includes the dev fee, perhaps adding an addition line of just the dev fee hashrate so we aren't seeing as big of dependencies between miner and pool hashrate. 3) you still haven't detailed why Bminer contacting 104.31.68.221:443/104.31.69.221:443 regularly. runtime and licensing information is too vague to mean anything to us. |
|
|
|
I have read in a forum that they want release it during next days
champions!  |
|
|
|
is anyone currently working on a windows version of myshare or equivalent? or are we just hoping someone does share theirs?  |
|
|
|
Are here many windows users? Just curious?
i'm a windows user until i get enough practice with linux |
|
|
|
|
